Columbia Insurance Group, Inc., and Columbia Mutual Insurance Co., Inc., Petitioners v. Cenark — Danielson, J…

Summary

Justice Danielson dissented, concluding that the court exceeded its authority in refusing to answer the two certified insurance-coverage questions and instead deciding an unasked coverage question. He would have held that faulty workmanship causing property damage to a third party's work or work product is an occurrence and that the expected-or-intended-injury exclusion did not bar coverage on the pleadings presented. Justice Hart, dissenting separately, would likewise have limited the court to the certified questions or declined to answer them rather than issue an advisory opinion.